Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Gingrich: Politics Is a ‘Nasty, Vicious, Negative’ and Disgusting Business
Gingrich: Politics Is a ‘Nasty, Vicious, Negative’ and Disgusting Business: In an interview with ABC News, Newt Gingrich accused his Republican opponents of lying in their negative ads and offering “no hope they will be any good as president.” “Politics has become a really nasty, vicious, negative business and I think it’s disgusting and I...
More on Gingrich
In an earlier post, I mentioned a series of videos posted on this site, which is referred to as Victory of Death.
I wanted to revisit that series because of something that Gingrich said about Bush's 2004 campaign against Kerry. Here's a screen shot of the passage:
He said that Bush was uncomfortable with ideas. Fast forward to 2011, and you get Romney going after Newt as being zany and now going after him for his weeping incident. Another campaign about personality?
Romney refuses to debate with Gingrich too. Why? Is he afraid or uncomfortable with ideas?
That leads to an executive who won't veto bills. He goes on to say that this is absolutely necessary because Congress cannot discipline itself. If an executive doesn't have the broad authority to sustain his vetoes, you'll end up with a lot of unwise spending.
The election of 2006 was a message. How did the Republicans respond? Was succeeding until the market collapse in 2008. Gingrich says that you can always win on issues-- but not with personalities.
Gingrich has a game plan. Will the Republicans buy into it? Why not? Hasn't it worked before?
I wanted to revisit that series because of something that Gingrich said about Bush's 2004 campaign against Kerry. Here's a screen shot of the passage:
 |
| Gingrich says that Bush in 2004 wanted to run a campaign based upon personalities, as opposed to ideas. |
Romney refuses to debate with Gingrich too. Why? Is he afraid or uncomfortable with ideas?
That leads to an executive who won't veto bills. He goes on to say that this is absolutely necessary because Congress cannot discipline itself. If an executive doesn't have the broad authority to sustain his vetoes, you'll end up with a lot of unwise spending.
The election of 2006 was a message. How did the Republicans respond? Was succeeding until the market collapse in 2008. Gingrich says that you can always win on issues-- but not with personalities.
Gingrich has a game plan. Will the Republicans buy into it? Why not? Hasn't it worked before?
Et tu, Ann? The unkindest cut of all.
William A. Jacobson: So much of what the left-wing said about Coulter turns out to be true
quote:
Comment:
I feel this one because it had an influence upon me. I like Coulter, but you sometimes get a situation in which a stalwart goes bad. I don't know if that's happening here, but this wasn't good.
quote:
Who would have expected it. Ann Coulter in her endorsement of Mitt Romney gave a very misleading account of Rick Santorum’s immigration record, asserting that he voted against E-Verify.
Comment:
I feel this one because it had an influence upon me. I like Coulter, but you sometimes get a situation in which a stalwart goes bad. I don't know if that's happening here, but this wasn't good.
Steve Deace: Why I Am Endorsing Newt Gingrich for President
stevedeace.com
quotes:
I did a post about a series of videos Deace made about Presidential hopefuls. There's one about Romney, and here's the one he made about Gingrich
Iowa's caucuses are almost here, but Texas is two months away yet.
I haven't made my mind up yet, but last night I gave it some thought. I have said and will say again that I am leaning towards Gingrich. Why? I think Gingrich will tell you what you need to hear, not necessarily what you want to hear. To me, this give his words more credibility. Anybody can tell you what you want to hear. It takes a bit of political courage to say and do what is not necessarily the most popular thing.
I recall reading somewhere that Harry Truman once said that good leadership is getting people to do what they don't want to do and liking it. If I am reading Gingrich right, I think he could be that kind of leader.
quotes:
- Sadly, there are only two candidates offering a real means by which to actually undo that which the Left has done to this country for the past 50 years, and not just conservative platitudes. One of those candidates is Ron Paul [ Comment: And Paul isn't a realistic choice.]
- The Left has used unelected judges and judicial oligarchy to reinvent the American way of life, from secularism to the loss of the sanctity of life, to the redefining of marriage, the confiscation of private property, and the granting of imaginary rights. [ Comment: I wrote about a ConCon in order to deal with this.]
- The future is at stake, and we may never get another environment with the country so prepared to challenge the system as we have right now.
- Sometimes the most broken people are the ones God does the most tremendous work through. I know that has been true in my life.
I did a post about a series of videos Deace made about Presidential hopefuls. There's one about Romney, and here's the one he made about Gingrich
Iowa's caucuses are almost here, but Texas is two months away yet.
I haven't made my mind up yet, but last night I gave it some thought. I have said and will say again that I am leaning towards Gingrich. Why? I think Gingrich will tell you what you need to hear, not necessarily what you want to hear. To me, this give his words more credibility. Anybody can tell you what you want to hear. It takes a bit of political courage to say and do what is not necessarily the most popular thing.
I recall reading somewhere that Harry Truman once said that good leadership is getting people to do what they don't want to do and liking it. If I am reading Gingrich right, I think he could be that kind of leader.
Friday, December 30, 2011
E-Cat Weekly -- December 29, 2011
pesn.com
Comment:
I checked out one of the articles here, titled "Could Starships Use Cold Fusion Propulsion?" Personally, I didn't think so when I started reading, so that is not what I'm posting about here.
No, it is that the article is quite skeptical about the E-cat, and actually does a good job of debunking it. Yes, it is a good job, the best I've seen so far. Actually, the article doesn't do the heavy lifting, but only links to it here. A concerted effort to read through it all should leave some significant questions for Rossi to answer.
But I am not totally convinced. I'll tell you what gave me pause, and that is the protection from gamma rays. Not being well trained in this area, I can see why this got past me before. It doesn't seem likely that Rossi's device is doing what he claims unless he has more shielding than what he has. But the reaction chamber is really small ( only a little over 3 cubic inches (50 cm3)). Shielding that shouldn't be too difficult, but how do you know that Rossi actually did that? That something that could lead to a quick dismissal of Rossi's claims. But it could also lead to a confirmation.
The other part that may be significant is the copper ash of the claimed reaction. I worked through these myself. Now, I can see getting to copper 63, but not to copper 65 in the amounts claimed. I think this is a significant point, and it is another thing that got by me. But I never claimed to be an expert.
No, I'm not totally convinced one way or the other. But Rossi has to prove his point. He has done so yet.
Comment:
I checked out one of the articles here, titled "Could Starships Use Cold Fusion Propulsion?" Personally, I didn't think so when I started reading, so that is not what I'm posting about here.
No, it is that the article is quite skeptical about the E-cat, and actually does a good job of debunking it. Yes, it is a good job, the best I've seen so far. Actually, the article doesn't do the heavy lifting, but only links to it here. A concerted effort to read through it all should leave some significant questions for Rossi to answer.
But I am not totally convinced. I'll tell you what gave me pause, and that is the protection from gamma rays. Not being well trained in this area, I can see why this got past me before. It doesn't seem likely that Rossi's device is doing what he claims unless he has more shielding than what he has. But the reaction chamber is really small ( only a little over 3 cubic inches (50 cm3)). Shielding that shouldn't be too difficult, but how do you know that Rossi actually did that? That something that could lead to a quick dismissal of Rossi's claims. But it could also lead to a confirmation.
The other part that may be significant is the copper ash of the claimed reaction. I worked through these myself. Now, I can see getting to copper 63, but not to copper 65 in the amounts claimed. I think this is a significant point, and it is another thing that got by me. But I never claimed to be an expert.
No, I'm not totally convinced one way or the other. But Rossi has to prove his point. He has done so yet.
We will pay the price for giving Romney a free pass
William A. Jacobson
quote:
I don't know that this will work for the Democrats, though. It work for the Bain ads in Massachussetts, but would the same ads work everywhere else? Polls show that class warfare is not a winning strategy for the Democrats.
If Romney is to be attacked successfully by the Dems, it will have to be on some other issue. Flip flops? Maybe. But the independents may not care about that.
quote:
There is every reason to believe that the lines of attack which worked for Kennedy and McCain will work for ObamaComment:
I don't know that this will work for the Democrats, though. It work for the Bain ads in Massachussetts, but would the same ads work everywhere else? Polls show that class warfare is not a winning strategy for the Democrats.
If Romney is to be attacked successfully by the Dems, it will have to be on some other issue. Flip flops? Maybe. But the independents may not care about that.
Obama's foreign policy failures have yet to explode, but when they do . . .
Caroline B. Glick
quotes:
The left ran against Reagan's ideas in the last election. Carter was rehabilitated. It should not be surprising then, that we should get the same kind of things from Obama as we got from Carter. It is just a matter of time before it really does explode.
quotes:
- His supporters argue that Obama's foreign policy has been a massive success. If he had as much freedom of action on domestic affairs as he has on foreign affairs, they argue, his achievements in all areas would be without peer.
- Indeed, a cursory examination of the impact so far of Obama's foreign policies in country after country and region after region indicates that his policies have been more damaging to US national interests than those of any president since Jimmy Carter.
- So how is that that while Carter was perceived by the majority of the American public as a foreign policy failure, a large plurality of Americans views Obama's foreign policy as a success?
- First, to date the US has not been forced to contend directly with the consequences of his failures.
- To date, Obama's foreign policy failures have yet to explode in a manner that can make the average American aware of them.
The left ran against Reagan's ideas in the last election. Carter was rehabilitated. It should not be surprising then, that we should get the same kind of things from Obama as we got from Carter. It is just a matter of time before it really does explode.
Announcement
In case anybody is wondering, I have dropped out of Facebook. I have also cancelled the People for Space Colonization page. It wasn't working like I had hoped anyway.
First Demonstration of Time Cloaking
Technology Review
quote:
They may be too modest, but not I. If you can prevent the recording of events, isn't that tantamount to "stopping the clock"? If you can stop the clock and if you can still traverse space, your speed can be infinite. It's like dividing by zero. It can be a freakin' warp drive.
But that is just wild speculation. There's probably a catch in there somewhere.
Update:
I'm going to do more reading about this and continue to update this claim through the day.
This National Geographic story makes it look more like light shifting than time bending.
This physorg.com story leaves me with the impression that it is just an illusion:
If time was bent, then the light would be altered. If the light is not altered, then whatever happens to the light, happens inside the device. The device only prevents the observation of the event, as opposed to the event itself. How then can it be said that time is altered? I don't get it.
I think I've seen enough. Here's is what you can do: Just measure the speed that the light travels. The possibilities are: slower light speed, the same light speed, or faster light speed. My guess is that it is slower light speed. The lag is in the middle where speed of light is decelerated, and then sped up again. However, the time lost in the lag cannot be made up. Therefore, the speed of the light at the end is slower than the usual speed. Time is not bent, only the light waves.
quote:
Fridman and pals have clearly made themselves an interesting toy but they modestly refrain from speculating about the applications for their time cloak.Comment:
They may be too modest, but not I. If you can prevent the recording of events, isn't that tantamount to "stopping the clock"? If you can stop the clock and if you can still traverse space, your speed can be infinite. It's like dividing by zero. It can be a freakin' warp drive.
But that is just wild speculation. There's probably a catch in there somewhere.
Update:
I'm going to do more reading about this and continue to update this claim through the day.
This National Geographic story makes it look more like light shifting than time bending.
This physorg.com story leaves me with the impression that it is just an illusion:
The result is light emerging from the end of the cable that appears to be unaltered
If time was bent, then the light would be altered. If the light is not altered, then whatever happens to the light, happens inside the device. The device only prevents the observation of the event, as opposed to the event itself. How then can it be said that time is altered? I don't get it.
I think I've seen enough. Here's is what you can do: Just measure the speed that the light travels. The possibilities are: slower light speed, the same light speed, or faster light speed. My guess is that it is slower light speed. The lag is in the middle where speed of light is decelerated, and then sped up again. However, the time lost in the lag cannot be made up. Therefore, the speed of the light at the end is slower than the usual speed. Time is not bent, only the light waves.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
From Informavore No. 487
EGO OUT
A couple links therefrom:
Towards artificial photosynthesis for solar hydrogen generation: Algal protein gives boost to electrochemical water splitting
A way to produce hydrogen?
Novel device removes heavy metals from water
Cleans water and mines the polluted water for resources. A two fer.
A couple links therefrom:
Towards artificial photosynthesis for solar hydrogen generation: Algal protein gives boost to electrochemical water splitting
A way to produce hydrogen?
Novel device removes heavy metals from water
Cleans water and mines the polluted water for resources. A two fer.
ROBERT REICH: Get Ready For A Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket
Business Insider
quote:
Comment:
Cult of personality, anyone?
quote:
According to the latest Gallup poll, the duo are this year’s most admired man and woman This marks the fourth consecutive win for Obama while Clinton has been the most admired woman in each of the last 10 years.
Comment:
Cult of personality, anyone?
REPUBLICANS HAND OBAMA BIG WIN!
DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!
Comment:
Not exactly "new" news. But he did mention that the House Republicans are about to step in it again.
Comment:
Not exactly "new" news. But he did mention that the House Republicans are about to step in it again.
Romney’s electability is overblown
William A. Jacobson
quote:
Freakin' A. The media and the Democrats, which are practically one and the same, want Romney. The media will turn on him on a dime. Nobody should vote for the guy unless he is right on the issues.
Now, Ann Coulter has one issue which she says is a deal maker--- Romney supports E-verify.
Coulter's take on Romney is that he won a blue state and that is a plus. The electability issue is important, she says, because that is the only way to get rid of Obamacare. The illegal immigration issue will permanently change the electorate. That's the second reason.
Also, with respect to my earlier post on the fall of the Roman Empire, my thinking is adjusting a bit on the personal character issue. That doesn't look good for Gingrich. I get a small inkling here of a personality cult around Gingrich. But it is nothing like Obama becoming "the Messiah" in 2008.
I remain undecided. Texas' primary in March. Lots of time.
quote:
Earlier in the fall when Democrats gently started going negative on Romney, Romney’s numbers dropped, but then the Democrats pulled back. There is every reason to believe that once the Kennedy-like attacks on Romney start in earnest, his electability will be in doubt.Comment:
Freakin' A. The media and the Democrats, which are practically one and the same, want Romney. The media will turn on him on a dime. Nobody should vote for the guy unless he is right on the issues.
Now, Ann Coulter has one issue which she says is a deal maker--- Romney supports E-verify.
Coulter's take on Romney is that he won a blue state and that is a plus. The electability issue is important, she says, because that is the only way to get rid of Obamacare. The illegal immigration issue will permanently change the electorate. That's the second reason.
Also, with respect to my earlier post on the fall of the Roman Empire, my thinking is adjusting a bit on the personal character issue. That doesn't look good for Gingrich. I get a small inkling here of a personality cult around Gingrich. But it is nothing like Obama becoming "the Messiah" in 2008.
I remain undecided. Texas' primary in March. Lots of time.
Kitco - Commentaries - Gold Might Have Already Hit Rock Bottom
Przemyslaw Radomski
quote:
Comment:
There's some talk about American decline and so forth. Yesterday, I spent a good deal of time reading about the decline of the Roman Empire. Most of it wasn't new to me, but some of it was. I was particularly struck by the story of Commodus, the son of the last "Good Emperor", Marcus Aurelius.
One theory I have is about leadership. Clearly, Commodus was not a good leader. Another example: it doesn't take much looking, as far as a Texan is concerned, to know about Santa Ana. There's another bad leader. But then, you look at Sam Houston and see a good one. A good leader can make a nation, a bad leader can break one. To me, a lot of a nation's fate is dependent upon its leadership.
America has had some good leaders. Fortunately, there has not been anything like Commodus nor Santa Ana. Some presidents have been excellent, others have been quite mediocre. There may be some argument, particularly on partisan grounds, about our most recent presidents. I don't like Obama, but he is not in that really bad class. Not yet. I don't think his ideas of income redistribution will be successful in getting the economy moving forward again. It looks like he will run on that theme in the upcoming election. If he is successful with it, he just may preside over a collapse. That collapse will be more on him than anyone else, even if he did inherit a bad situation. Reagan inherited a bad situation-- it isn't an excuse for continued failure.
quote:
The American economy has enjoyed ... low-hanging fruit since at least the 17th century...Yet during the last 40 years, that low-hanging fruit started disappearing, and we started pretending it was still there. We have failed to recognize that we are at a technological plateau
Comment:
There's some talk about American decline and so forth. Yesterday, I spent a good deal of time reading about the decline of the Roman Empire. Most of it wasn't new to me, but some of it was. I was particularly struck by the story of Commodus, the son of the last "Good Emperor", Marcus Aurelius.
One theory I have is about leadership. Clearly, Commodus was not a good leader. Another example: it doesn't take much looking, as far as a Texan is concerned, to know about Santa Ana. There's another bad leader. But then, you look at Sam Houston and see a good one. A good leader can make a nation, a bad leader can break one. To me, a lot of a nation's fate is dependent upon its leadership.
America has had some good leaders. Fortunately, there has not been anything like Commodus nor Santa Ana. Some presidents have been excellent, others have been quite mediocre. There may be some argument, particularly on partisan grounds, about our most recent presidents. I don't like Obama, but he is not in that really bad class. Not yet. I don't think his ideas of income redistribution will be successful in getting the economy moving forward again. It looks like he will run on that theme in the upcoming election. If he is successful with it, he just may preside over a collapse. That collapse will be more on him than anyone else, even if he did inherit a bad situation. Reagan inherited a bad situation-- it isn't an excuse for continued failure.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Barone: Voters want growth, not income redistribution
Washington Examiner
quotes:
quotes:
- He cites a recent Gallup poll showing that while 82 percent of Americans think it's extremely or very important to "grow and expand the economy
- only 46 percent say it's important to "reduce the income and wealth gap between the rich and the poor"
- Class warfare politics, as I have noted, hasn't produced a Democratic presidential victory in a long, long time
- Redistribution edges toward a zero-sum game.
- Lesson: If you want redistribution, you better first produce growth. Which the Obama Democrats' policies have failed to do.
American civilization could be next to collapse
By SILVIO LACCETTI | Special to The Tampa Tribune
Crying wolf? You hear enough of this, and it doesn't happen, you have doubts.
But there's no doubt that there's a problem. What to do about it? Find out just exactly what is the problem and how to best solve it.
Crying wolf? You hear enough of this, and it doesn't happen, you have doubts.
But there's no doubt that there's a problem. What to do about it? Find out just exactly what is the problem and how to best solve it.
RON PAUL: TO THE LEFT OF OBAMA!
DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!
Beyond the pale, he says. Paul simply isn't viable. He's too far out of the mainstream. Yes, the mainstream is conventional wisdom, but you have to pay some homage to it. Not many are going to be convinced by some radical ideas. They're going to be afraid of them.
Beyond the pale, he says. Paul simply isn't viable. He's too far out of the mainstream. Yes, the mainstream is conventional wisdom, but you have to pay some homage to it. Not many are going to be convinced by some radical ideas. They're going to be afraid of them.
Articles: Bachmann vs. the 'Fact-Checkers': Did Iran Threaten Nuclear Attack on U.S.?
American Thinker
Comment:
I categorize this one as morality because somebody here has got to be lying. When it comes to the left, I am suspicious. Very suspicious.
I recall that during the Bush administration, the Iranian president "invited" the US to convert to Islam. It was pointed out that this type of "invitation" has historically tended to precede an attack.
Comment:
I categorize this one as morality because somebody here has got to be lying. When it comes to the left, I am suspicious. Very suspicious.
I recall that during the Bush administration, the Iranian president "invited" the US to convert to Islam. It was pointed out that this type of "invitation" has historically tended to precede an attack.
Scarcity and the way to overcome it
Law of scarcity and The Ultimate Resource chapter 28: saying the same things, (in my opinion) but in a different way.
quote:
quote:
Either way,however, the concept of mineral resources as "finite" is unnecessary, confusing, and misleading. And the notion of our planet as "spaceship earth," launched with a countable amount of each resource and hence having less minerals per passenger as the number of passengers is greater, is dramatic but irrelevant.I think he's basically saying that demand will always lead to more production. What I'm saying is that abundance will just shift attention back to a different scarcity. Once something is abundant, the thing itself is no longer important, but the process of getting it is. That's because the process itself then becomes the scarce item that can be marketed, not its output, which no longer can be. For example, a new process for obtaining fresh water from seawater is invented. The fresh water becomes too abundant to market, but the device itself can still be marketed because it is now the scarce good in demand.
Townhall: 7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability Is A Myth
John Hawkins
Comment: Didn't I question that myself recently?
John Hinderaker endorses Romney. That's as positive an endorsement as I've seen for any candidate anywhere. The trouble is that Romney hasn't done enough of that himself, or I would have a different opinion of him.
Comment: Didn't I question that myself recently?
John Hinderaker endorses Romney. That's as positive an endorsement as I've seen for any candidate anywhere. The trouble is that Romney hasn't done enough of that himself, or I would have a different opinion of him.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
How To Make The World's Greatest Apple Crisp
Learn how to make the world's greatest apple crisp step by step.
What you need:
- 2/3 cup flour
- 1/2 cup brown sugar
- 1/3 cup white sugar
-1/2 cup butter
- 2/3 oatmeal
- 2-3 pounds apples
- cinnamon
Fill 9 inch square pan 2/3 full of sliced apples, sprinkle with sugar. Cover with crumbly mixture and bake at 350 degrees Fahrenheit for 30-45 minutes or until apples are tender.
How To Make The World's Greatest Apple Crisp from Jeremy Campbell on UnleashVideo
What you need:
- 2/3 cup flour
- 1/2 cup brown sugar
- 1/3 cup white sugar
-1/2 cup butter
- 2/3 oatmeal
- 2-3 pounds apples
- cinnamon
Fill 9 inch square pan 2/3 full of sliced apples, sprinkle with sugar. Cover with crumbly mixture and bake at 350 degrees Fahrenheit for 30-45 minutes or until apples are tender.
How To Make The World's Greatest Apple Crisp from Jeremy Campbell on UnleashVideo
Annus Horribilis: Space in 2011
airspacemag.com/moon/
quotes:
This story is about the government's role in space. The private sector has not done quite so badly as that. Besides a Paul Allen's new launch platform, there's a race on to mine the moon. And if the government doesn't want to go back to the moon, they are acknowledging the strong possibility that someone else will.
quotes:
- A long established year-end tradition – for good or ill – is a review and analysis of the preceding twelve months.
- few noticed or understood that without a replacement, the country’s capability for humans to access space had been discarded.
- In other exciting developments, the agency announced their new “mission statement”...a mission statement for an agency without a mission.
- NASA finally decided that they should probably go ahead and build a new launch vehicle...Perhaps even for less than its estimated $100 billion cost.
- Robotic science missions...had their own share of difficulties this year. The Goddard-run James Webb Space Telescope... is coming in late with a price tag of more than $8.7 billion and counting
- all travel to destinations offering little scientific and exploratory benefit or variety; their main attraction seems to be the yet-to-be-explained agency imperative to cross them off some “been there” check-list.
- The year 2011 was an annus horribilis for the national space program. Here’s to the forthcoming year and hopes for a return of sanity to space policy.
This story is about the government's role in space. The private sector has not done quite so badly as that. Besides a Paul Allen's new launch platform, there's a race on to mine the moon. And if the government doesn't want to go back to the moon, they are acknowledging the strong possibility that someone else will.
E-Cat Weekly--- Source for E-cat news
My last post about the E-cat was on the 13th. That's two weeks, my, how the time flies. The last bunch of news came from the PESN site, so I went back there and found a weekly compilation of E-cat news. It is dated on the 22nd of December, and the one before it was dated on the 15th. That means the next should be dated in a couple days from today, which will be the 29th.
Looks like a good source of information. I'll keep up with it. Call it a New Year's Resolution. Here's something interesting that I just found:
Update:
Cold Fusion Now has the interview where Romney says "cold fusion"--- note the time
Looks like a good source of information. I'll keep up with it. Call it a New Year's Resolution. Here's something interesting that I just found:
I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. ---- Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for President [ emphasis mine. Comment: If he's talking about Fleischmann and Pons, he needs to catch up a little bit on the news.]I scanned through all the stories and there's enough reading material to keep anyone busy for a long time.
Update:
Cold Fusion Now has the interview where Romney says "cold fusion"--- note the time
 |
| "cold fusion, if we can come up with it" |
Rigged game
Today is a big picture sort of day. First, about the blog, and now about the general state of affairs with our politics. In particular, I want to discuss something about these polls. In very particular, about the approval rating for Congress.
You see, 90 per cent of them get reelected every time. What incentive do they have to change? So the poll they conduct about Congressional approval rating is a really stupid poll. Nobody is likely to vote against their own representative because it is set up that way. So what good does it do to have an approval rating which means absolutely nothing in terms of what can be done about it?
The congressional districts are gerrymandered in order to produce the desired outcome. Therefore, the odds are that you will be in agreement with the general political leanings in your congressional district. Supposedly, it is against the law, but they can wink at that pretty easily.
I have a theory about the parties. I think that they have it set up so that the votes are always as close as possible so that there aren't any real differences between them. On the occasions when there are really significant differences, the differences get smoothed over, or fixed so that there's no real accountability.
It is almost as if the system is rigged in order to produce an outcome that is pretty much in line with past outcomes. It isn't any wonder then that no problem ever gets solved.
What to do about it? Stop publishing stupid polls, for one.
You see, 90 per cent of them get reelected every time. What incentive do they have to change? So the poll they conduct about Congressional approval rating is a really stupid poll. Nobody is likely to vote against their own representative because it is set up that way. So what good does it do to have an approval rating which means absolutely nothing in terms of what can be done about it?
The congressional districts are gerrymandered in order to produce the desired outcome. Therefore, the odds are that you will be in agreement with the general political leanings in your congressional district. Supposedly, it is against the law, but they can wink at that pretty easily.
I have a theory about the parties. I think that they have it set up so that the votes are always as close as possible so that there aren't any real differences between them. On the occasions when there are really significant differences, the differences get smoothed over, or fixed so that there's no real accountability.
It is almost as if the system is rigged in order to produce an outcome that is pretty much in line with past outcomes. It isn't any wonder then that no problem ever gets solved.
What to do about it? Stop publishing stupid polls, for one.
NEWT’S NEGATIVES: TRUE OR FALSE?
DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!
Morris says about 1/3 correct. It is a fair and balanced fact check. Hope anybody interested will check it out.
Morris says about 1/3 correct. It is a fair and balanced fact check. Hope anybody interested will check it out.
Free SEO Report Card: Website Grader Software for SMBs
DIYSEO
How does this blog stack up to the competition? Rather poorly according to the above site.
In order to run the test on a site, you have to provide it with the following bits of information
When I put in "Karshevian", google returns "Kardashian", which is not what I'm trying to do.
Since "Kardashevian" is a unique word, which I think I coined myself, I should be on the top of the list. But that is not available to me.
As I have noticed before, Being Right is Not Enough. Although this may be a unique blog, which is putting out some good stuff, this report shows that it is not being noticed. But being noticed does not confer upon anyone anything special or significant aside from that fact itself. Getting noticed does not make you right, nor smarter, nor better, nor any more truthful, nor deserving. But it is a fact of life.
I could use this service to improve my metrics, but I don't know if I will. It hasn't really told me anything I didn't know already. But I may consider it. There may be something I can do without having to sell out in order to get noticed.
One thing that I noticed with my YouTube page. People seem to go to what's popular. This seems to get a life of its own once it starts happening. There's plenty of other videos on my channel, but that top video seems to get all of the attention, even though I don't think that really makes it any better than the rest. But how else are you going to know except by what the numbers say? It makes sense, in a way, but seems rather shallow in another way.
By the way, I got the idea for that popular video from Next Big Future! Doh!
Update:
This is off topic, but I'll put it up anyway. I like this so much, I'm going to put up a link to it: My favorite elevator music.
How does this blog stack up to the competition? Rather poorly according to the above site.
- a keyword that can be searched in google. I used "kardashev how to" Note: the site on top was Next Big Future
- So I put that web site in as a comparison
When I put in "Karshevian", google returns "Kardashian", which is not what I'm trying to do.
Since "Kardashevian" is a unique word, which I think I coined myself, I should be on the top of the list. But that is not available to me.
As I have noticed before, Being Right is Not Enough. Although this may be a unique blog, which is putting out some good stuff, this report shows that it is not being noticed. But being noticed does not confer upon anyone anything special or significant aside from that fact itself. Getting noticed does not make you right, nor smarter, nor better, nor any more truthful, nor deserving. But it is a fact of life.
I could use this service to improve my metrics, but I don't know if I will. It hasn't really told me anything I didn't know already. But I may consider it. There may be something I can do without having to sell out in order to get noticed.
One thing that I noticed with my YouTube page. People seem to go to what's popular. This seems to get a life of its own once it starts happening. There's plenty of other videos on my channel, but that top video seems to get all of the attention, even though I don't think that really makes it any better than the rest. But how else are you going to know except by what the numbers say? It makes sense, in a way, but seems rather shallow in another way.
By the way, I got the idea for that popular video from Next Big Future! Doh!
Update:
This is off topic, but I'll put it up anyway. I like this so much, I'm going to put up a link to it: My favorite elevator music.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Painting Solar Cells with Nanoparticle Paste
h/t Instapundit and Huffington Post
quote:
Depends on cost too. Let's say 1% is the top number, but you can make a lot of it at low cost. Then the sheer size of a house might be able to produce plenty of electricity.
quote:
Unfortunately the paint is far from ready to be sold commercially, Kamat explained.Comment:
"The best light-to-energy conversion efficiency we've reached so far is 1 percent, which is well behind the usual 10 to 15 percent efficiency of commercial silicon solar cells," Kamat said. "But this paint can be made cheaply and in large quantities. If we can improve the efficiency somewhat, we may be able to make a real difference in meeting energy needs in the future."
Depends on cost too. Let's say 1% is the top number, but you can make a lot of it at low cost. Then the sheer size of a house might be able to produce plenty of electricity.
Why the establishment fears Newt Gingrich
Washington Post via Behind the Black
quote:
As I observed earlier today, they want to undermine the one guy who can win as opposed to the others who can't. Makes you wonder what these people are really all about.
quote:
Newt is a proven leader, someone with the background, understanding, vision and discipline to be our president; the establishment fears that he just might win.Comment:
As I observed earlier today, they want to undermine the one guy who can win as opposed to the others who can't. Makes you wonder what these people are really all about.
Predictable
Politics 2011: “The Stench of Washington”
Consider this:
The stench of Washington will continue to be a stench as long as there is no resolution of the matter in favor of one group or another. The end of the stench requires that the Democrats must go, or the Republicans. If the next election produces another stalemate, the stench will smell the same.
Consider this:
Because of the way negotiations between President Obama and Speaker Boehner were handled (or mishandled) the failure to hammer out a deal will be "permanently damaging" to Washington, says David Chalian, Washington bureau chief for Yahoo! News.It was predictable that they wouldn't agree. Why should the Republicans grant Obama's wishes or vice versa? This was all predictable and some people wished for it. They wished for it because of what happened in the nineties when Clinton and the Republicans shared power. But it didn't work out that way this time, did it?
The stench of Washington will continue to be a stench as long as there is no resolution of the matter in favor of one group or another. The end of the stench requires that the Democrats must go, or the Republicans. If the next election produces another stalemate, the stench will smell the same.
The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment
Julian L. Simon
Surprising resource to me, as it unravels much of what is considered conventional wisdom. It is kinda out of date, but the information therein might as well have been written yesterday. For example:
It seems that this site is quite positive about conditions, but this was in the late nineties. Since then, things have gotten a bit dour. But look at this:
Here one more quote that struck me:
Update:
I like this quote, so I'll add it:
Surprising resource to me, as it unravels much of what is considered conventional wisdom. It is kinda out of date, but the information therein might as well have been written yesterday. For example:
CAN THE SUPPLY OF NATURAL RESOURCES - ESPECIALLY ENERGY -This does not even take into consideration the possibilities of outer space. Also consider this:
REALLY BE INFINITE? YES!
The argument in this chapter is very counter-intuitive, as are most of the ideas in this book. Indeed,science is most useful when it is counter-intuitive. But when scientific ideas are sufficiently far from "common sense," people will be uncomfortable with science, and they will prefer other explanations,
It seems that this site is quite positive about conditions, but this was in the late nineties. Since then, things have gotten a bit dour. But look at this:
Now I'll restate this line of thought into a theory that will appear again and again in the book: More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run.Yes, that is counter intuitive and very unconventional. We are told we must conserve because of limited resources, but this fella said just the opposite.
Here one more quote that struck me:
Energy is the most important of natural resources becauseThat's why I think we should conquer space. But if you conquer energy, you can also conquer space. So this quote is definitely true.
(a) the creation of other natural resources requires energy; and
(b) with enough energy all other resources can be created.
Update:
I like this quote, so I'll add it:
More appropriate than the Eiffel Tower analogy is this joke: Sam falls from a building he is working on, but luckily has hold of a safety rope. Inexplicably he lets go of the rope and hits the ground with a thud. Upon regaining consciousness he is asked: "Why did you let go of the rope?" "Ah", he says, "it was going to break anyway." Analogously, letting go of all the ropes that support the advance of civilization - for example, turning our backs on the best potential sources of energy - is the advice we now receive from energy doomsters and conservationists.
They were wrong in 1990 and they are wrong now
William A. Jacobson
quote:
There seems to be a lot wrong with the party. Those who can't or won't deliver victory tend to undermine those who can and will.
quote:
Call this whole story a parable of what is wrong with the Republican Party. People who cut deals which sell out our principles are deemed reasonable, while those refuse to cut deals are called bomb throwers.Comment:
There seems to be a lot wrong with the party. Those who can't or won't deliver victory tend to undermine those who can and will.
LOXLEO, Part III
Speculation alert: The first two posts
I wanted to revisit this, in order to explore the proposition I put forth, particularly with respect to putting a tandem system. The lower satellite will collect the oxygen and the higher satellite will furnish power to it. How to execute this?
I took a look around the web in order to see if such might be feasible. You can lower and raise the orbit in space by the following procedure:
A tandem system could follow this procedure in order to lower the collector module down to a lower orbit, while the upper satellite could stay above it and power the lower satellite system with a power beam. The upper satellite may get its own power from yet another orbiting satellite at GSO, or even system of satellites at GSO so as to keep it continually supplied with energy. The power would come from solar panels, most likely installed on a satellite orbiting at GSO.
The upper satellite at LEO could also be a fuel depot and accept the contents of the lower satellite after it finishes filling up. It would transfer its cargo to the upper satellite after rendezvous, and then return to lower orbit for more. The process could be repeated many times.
The advantage is from reusability of not only the modules themselves, but of other spacecraft that it can refuel.
While there is no method of getting hydrogen this way, a separate system could lift it from the ground. Since hydrogen is the lightest element in the periodic table, the mass penalty should be the least. If you don't have to lift LOX, you save 7/8 ths of the mass needed for a LH/LOX propellant system.
Let say you could use a Stratolaunch system to deliver the hydrogen and a LOXLEO system for the hydrogen. Even though the Stratolaunch would be limited in how much it could bring up at any one time, it could take advantage of the LOXLEO system in order to stretch the capabilities of the hydrogen thus delivered. Thus, each system could complement each other for maximum efficiency by using the strengths of each system.
I wanted to revisit this, in order to explore the proposition I put forth, particularly with respect to putting a tandem system. The lower satellite will collect the oxygen and the higher satellite will furnish power to it. How to execute this?
I took a look around the web in order to see if such might be feasible. You can lower and raise the orbit in space by the following procedure:
 |
| Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems: Enabling Technologies for Space |
The upper satellite at LEO could also be a fuel depot and accept the contents of the lower satellite after it finishes filling up. It would transfer its cargo to the upper satellite after rendezvous, and then return to lower orbit for more. The process could be repeated many times.
The advantage is from reusability of not only the modules themselves, but of other spacecraft that it can refuel.
While there is no method of getting hydrogen this way, a separate system could lift it from the ground. Since hydrogen is the lightest element in the periodic table, the mass penalty should be the least. If you don't have to lift LOX, you save 7/8 ths of the mass needed for a LH/LOX propellant system.
Let say you could use a Stratolaunch system to deliver the hydrogen and a LOXLEO system for the hydrogen. Even though the Stratolaunch would be limited in how much it could bring up at any one time, it could take advantage of the LOXLEO system in order to stretch the capabilities of the hydrogen thus delivered. Thus, each system could complement each other for maximum efficiency by using the strengths of each system.
SANTORUM COMES ON STRONG!
DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!
Wait until the media gets hold of him, or maybe Bachmann will do it for them.
Wait until the media gets hold of him, or maybe Bachmann will do it for them.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
These are the times that try men's souls
That may have been the phrase that I was looking for, not Winter of Discontent. If so, then it is my own fault. Maybe it is a senior moment, who knows?
It looks like we are going to have a hard time making any real change to the current state of affairs. That possibility is worthy of either phrase. When I see the President's chances as not being so bad, at least according to some, I have to shake my head. But that was the case when he got elected in the first place. I never understood the attraction for the guy.
It is particularly galling for the left to blame the Republicans for what is happening now when they got something that no Republican president has gotten in my lifetime and well before. No Republican president had the kind of majority Obama had in his first two years. Whatever he wanted, he could have had. So, the lack of results should be judged that way. With no real opposition worth noting for two years, he should have been able to get what he wanted done. But what does he have to show for those two years? Instead, he got trounced in 2010 and that is hardly the reason to blame the Republicans for the difficulties that he brought upon himself.
For the Republicans part, they seem hellbent on losing whatever advantage they may have had. Gingrich and Perry get knocked off the ballot in Virginia-- why? Because they did what they didn't do before- check the signatures. They needed 10,000, but nobody really checked these before. Why now? Because of a lawsuit. That tells you a couple things 1) the candidates who were eliminated didn't take that into consideration and 2) the Party didn't make additional changes to the procedures so that they wouldn't inadvertently disqualify a candidate. The whole thing is just plain dumb. Why do they insist upon shooting themselves in the foot?
The rest is pretty distressing too. People are letting themselves be twisted into pretzels by all of the polls instead of just trusting their own judgment. If someone makes a move, they all start attacking the new front runner. Then the newbie gives way to another and the process repeats. What kind of way is that to pick your candidate? Why can't the candidates stop following the polls and just enunciate their own positions instead of knocking each other down?
The Cain business was pretty bad too. Why not wait for definite evidence before allowing one of the candidates to be taken out like that?
Romney's support is suspicious. I think the media is going easy on him because the left really wants him to be the candidate. They will turn on him on a dime if he gets the nomination. Why should anybody be impressed with his poll numbers? The electability factor may be just a big ruse. Why fall for it?
It looks like we are going to have a hard time making any real change to the current state of affairs. That possibility is worthy of either phrase. When I see the President's chances as not being so bad, at least according to some, I have to shake my head. But that was the case when he got elected in the first place. I never understood the attraction for the guy.
It is particularly galling for the left to blame the Republicans for what is happening now when they got something that no Republican president has gotten in my lifetime and well before. No Republican president had the kind of majority Obama had in his first two years. Whatever he wanted, he could have had. So, the lack of results should be judged that way. With no real opposition worth noting for two years, he should have been able to get what he wanted done. But what does he have to show for those two years? Instead, he got trounced in 2010 and that is hardly the reason to blame the Republicans for the difficulties that he brought upon himself.
For the Republicans part, they seem hellbent on losing whatever advantage they may have had. Gingrich and Perry get knocked off the ballot in Virginia-- why? Because they did what they didn't do before- check the signatures. They needed 10,000, but nobody really checked these before. Why now? Because of a lawsuit. That tells you a couple things 1) the candidates who were eliminated didn't take that into consideration and 2) the Party didn't make additional changes to the procedures so that they wouldn't inadvertently disqualify a candidate. The whole thing is just plain dumb. Why do they insist upon shooting themselves in the foot?
The rest is pretty distressing too. People are letting themselves be twisted into pretzels by all of the polls instead of just trusting their own judgment. If someone makes a move, they all start attacking the new front runner. Then the newbie gives way to another and the process repeats. What kind of way is that to pick your candidate? Why can't the candidates stop following the polls and just enunciate their own positions instead of knocking each other down?
The Cain business was pretty bad too. Why not wait for definite evidence before allowing one of the candidates to be taken out like that?
Romney's support is suspicious. I think the media is going easy on him because the left really wants him to be the candidate. They will turn on him on a dime if he gets the nomination. Why should anybody be impressed with his poll numbers? The electability factor may be just a big ruse. Why fall for it?
Winter of Discontent--- Victory or Death?
Somehow I was misled into thinking this meant George Washington at Valley Forge. It must have come from some television program, which makes sense to me now. I have learned to despise TV. It could have been a medium of enlightenment, but has become the opposite.
But not to knock all video. It can serve that purpose, but unfortunately, it is also abused ignobly. I am thinking of the use of Gingrich's video about judges. I don't know how the majority can watch the entire series of videos and not feel sympathy for the view that Gingrich is expressing. Perhaps we are all too much in a hurry. It would appear that collectively, we have the attention span of a two year old. Consequently, it probably got sound bited into a distortion of what it really meant. All for a political effect that was completely in opposition to the whole point he was attempting to make. If you get manipulated into just watching the sound bite, shame on you.
People who decry the low level of our discourse should make it a point to watch those videos. If you won't, you can't be serious about your words.
It seems to be the winter of discontent alright, in terms of our politics. Not too many like the current state of affairs, nor does anybody seem to like the choices being put in front of us. Yet if you won't go around the media's manipulation of the news, plus anybody else's who may have a "dog in the hunt", then why should you expect any better?
Something is being lost in the process. Thus the use of the term "victory or death". What is dying? I think it must mean our freedom. With freedom must come responsibility. In a sense, Obama said it himself. The Republicans want to leave you to yourselves. As if that were a bad thing. Of course we should be left to ourselves. We are then free to make what we will of our own lives. We will be responsible for ourselves, good or bad. But if we give that up to the government, we lose not only that responsibility, but our freedom as well. Hence the death of freedom.
Obama and his ilk want what they are pleased to call "positive" freedoms. But we have all the freedom we need in the Constitution. Let's review briefly a bit of the Constitution. It is said to be about checks and balances. By why do you need these checks and balances? You need them to check and balance the ambitions of politicians. Not only the ones you disagree with, but the ones you agree with. Because at the heart of limited government is implied the need to limit the power of government, and hence the politicians who are drawn to it. There's a Bill of Rights, which has an interesting amendment as follows:
The left will view that as permission to expand the role of government. But how does that jibe with checks and balances? It doesn't.
Rick Perry likes to talk about the tenth, so what about it?
Looks like more checks and balances, doesn't it?
If the government isn't going to take care of you, then you must do that for yourself. The government can take of you, but should it? What can be wrong with that?
Nothing if that is what you want. But know this first: that everything comes at a price. This may be the missing part of too many discussions. Too many people seem to think there's something that can be gotten for nothing. But if you allow the government to take responsibility for those things that you could do for yourself, you lose your right to object. That will be the price to be paid for having the freedom to be irresponsible. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody has to pay. If you allow the government to put you on a leash, you can hardly complain about the leash when it starts to chafe.
Should they tell you what to think? That may already be the case if you won't go and see things for yourself. But that would take some responsibility on your part to find out what the truth is about a subject. If you allow the media to treat you as a two year old and sound bite everything, why should you expect any better from yourself? Why should you expect any better from your government? A two year old needs a good leash.
But not to knock all video. It can serve that purpose, but unfortunately, it is also abused ignobly. I am thinking of the use of Gingrich's video about judges. I don't know how the majority can watch the entire series of videos and not feel sympathy for the view that Gingrich is expressing. Perhaps we are all too much in a hurry. It would appear that collectively, we have the attention span of a two year old. Consequently, it probably got sound bited into a distortion of what it really meant. All for a political effect that was completely in opposition to the whole point he was attempting to make. If you get manipulated into just watching the sound bite, shame on you.
People who decry the low level of our discourse should make it a point to watch those videos. If you won't, you can't be serious about your words.
It seems to be the winter of discontent alright, in terms of our politics. Not too many like the current state of affairs, nor does anybody seem to like the choices being put in front of us. Yet if you won't go around the media's manipulation of the news, plus anybody else's who may have a "dog in the hunt", then why should you expect any better?
Something is being lost in the process. Thus the use of the term "victory or death". What is dying? I think it must mean our freedom. With freedom must come responsibility. In a sense, Obama said it himself. The Republicans want to leave you to yourselves. As if that were a bad thing. Of course we should be left to ourselves. We are then free to make what we will of our own lives. We will be responsible for ourselves, good or bad. But if we give that up to the government, we lose not only that responsibility, but our freedom as well. Hence the death of freedom.
Obama and his ilk want what they are pleased to call "positive" freedoms. But we have all the freedom we need in the Constitution. Let's review briefly a bit of the Constitution. It is said to be about checks and balances. By why do you need these checks and balances? You need them to check and balance the ambitions of politicians. Not only the ones you disagree with, but the ones you agree with. Because at the heart of limited government is implied the need to limit the power of government, and hence the politicians who are drawn to it. There's a Bill of Rights, which has an interesting amendment as follows:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The left will view that as permission to expand the role of government. But how does that jibe with checks and balances? It doesn't.
Rick Perry likes to talk about the tenth, so what about it?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Looks like more checks and balances, doesn't it?
If the government isn't going to take care of you, then you must do that for yourself. The government can take of you, but should it? What can be wrong with that?
Nothing if that is what you want. But know this first: that everything comes at a price. This may be the missing part of too many discussions. Too many people seem to think there's something that can be gotten for nothing. But if you allow the government to take responsibility for those things that you could do for yourself, you lose your right to object. That will be the price to be paid for having the freedom to be irresponsible. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody has to pay. If you allow the government to put you on a leash, you can hardly complain about the leash when it starts to chafe.
Should they tell you what to think? That may already be the case if you won't go and see things for yourself. But that would take some responsibility on your part to find out what the truth is about a subject. If you allow the media to treat you as a two year old and sound bite everything, why should you expect any better from yourself? Why should you expect any better from your government? A two year old needs a good leash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)